Despite health and privacy concerns, and reports of inaccuracy, Britain is embracing expensive full body scanners. The nation is implementing a no-scan-no-fly policy at some of its airports. The policy should help citizens feel safer, even if they aren't really, some say. (Source: CNN.com)

Scanners can't necessarily detect threats, but perhaps they will grant the illusion of security

The
United States, in the wake of a failed Christmas terrorist attack on
an airline headed to Detroit, Michigan, is looking to step up airport
security. In particular, it is considering adopting
on a broader scale 3D scanners which are currently being tested
at select airports across the U.S. Other countries, including
Great Britain are also considering adopting the devices.

Two
technologies currently are competing in the full body scan arena,
each with unique problems. The first technology, used slightly
more heavily in the U.S. is millimeter wave scanning. There are
numerous concerns about the technology including recent studies that
showed it could
cause DNA damage (which could increase the risk of cancer),
inefficiency at detecting contraband placed at the genitals (they are
obscured in the image, typically), and reports that the scanners are
capable of storing images and transmitting them -- raising privacy
concerns.

The second most prevalent technology is backscatter
X-Rays. The chief technology in Britain and also put in use at
some American airports, this technology also has numerous concerns.
It is even less effective and detecting contraband as it depends on
contrast with the skin -- so items smuggled in clothing lifted off
the body surface aren't typically shown. There are similar DNA
damage concerns and privacy issues as well. And both
backscatter X-Rays and millimeter waves have been shown to not always
detect low density materials like liquids, plastics, or powders,
raising the possibility of explosives
or plastic weapons escaping the scans.

Despite the
abundant concerns, Britain has issued a sharp
ultimatum to travelers -- no scan, no fly. Transport
Secretary Lord Adonis, a member of the ruling Labour Party proposed
the rules which first will go into effect at Manchester and Heathrow
airports. He writes, "If a passenger is selected for
scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly."

He
adds, "The code will require airports to undertake scanning
sensitively, having regard to the rights of passengers."

Despite
the numerous concerns, the head of customer experience at Manchester
airport, Sarah Barrett states, "It will enhance security for
everyone, which can only be a good thing, without compromising
people's privacy. The image generated by the body scanner
cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the
images recognize people."

The British government and U.S.
governments claim the scanners obscure genitalia. However, the
accuracy of those claims are being questioned after the Australian
government -- also testing the scanners -- admitted that it unblurred
the genitalia to increase the accuracy of the devices.
Admitted Australia's Cheryl Johnson, general manager of the Office of
Transport Security, "It will show the private parts of people,
but what we've decided is that we're not going to blur those out,
because it severely limits the detection capabilities."

Amid
numerous concerns -- privacy, health risks, and inefficiency --
governments have to decide whether to try to charge ahead with the
unproven and potentially damaging technology -- or to wait until it
is sufficiently refined and improved. Most world governments
seem to be opting for the latter approach, throwing caution to the
wind. While the new scanners may not necessarily increase
security significantly, they may at least offer people the illusion
of safety at the airport, albeit at the cost of privacy and health
risks. And perhaps that's worth the high taxpayer expenses as
Britain rolls out its new policy and the U.S. considers similar
mandates.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I agree. This does nothing to detect items stored in a "charger". Neither does a pat-down. If someone is desperate enough to kill himself in the process, he won't have a problem cramming stuff up the stinkhole. Security is simply an illusion, and one I'm not willing to sacrifice rights to attain.

I was reading an article in the National Post (Canadian national paper) where they commented on an Toronto Star interview with the security advisor for Israel's Ben Gurion Airport. He says North American airport security is useless and the lines are unnacceptable. The scanners just give the illusion of security. According to him, security here is too focuses on terrorists attacking planes. He says this is foolishness. How easy would it be to walk into one of the security lines at the terminal and detonate a bomb? Israel has managed to set up iron clad security without the lines or issues. Granted their airports are smaller and it would cost a lot to implement here. However, I think our dignity is worth that cash.http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomme...

In my opinion, forcing people to submit to scanning or pat downs without cause is illegal. If they implemented it here, I can see someone talking it to the human rights tribunal. Probably me.

I don't disagree with what you say, and I don't disagree with Israel's Ben Gurion Airport's security officer about US Airport security being "pointless" and "unacceptable"

But that guy in particular has no headroom for commenting on American security policy, because Israel is notoriously unsafe. Just a few years ago when they were really getting hammered my friends family had to move to Skokie, IL after a rocket blew the face off their apartment building.

I know this isn't remotely related to airport security, but I'm just saying...WE have a substantially safer country than they do, so they don't have any right to tell us whats 'wrong' with our security. Could the TSA be better, ohh yea, ten-fold. But their existance is obviously neccessary. You can't just NOT have security :)

Most of the people in Britain don't want to think for themselves. The rest of us are just waiting for a chance to leave.

Our media/newspapers are spineless and weak, our politicians don't give a damn about anything or anyone but themselves and we're all encouraged to turn on and spy on each other.

Everyone's bought into the "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" thing. That and "if it will fight terrorists (or paedophiles) then it's got to be good", and if you say anything about these things, then you must be a terrorist or paedophile.

It's quite sad really. There's a lot of talk about "broken Britain" because a few kids do really bad things, but the real stories that show that the country is broken are stories like this one, or where the police/council workers/anyone really can spy on me, or how bankers have held the country hostage and then raped it, whilst our MPs are too busy filling their own pockets and then when caught out, pretend it's all OK because they've told their friend to investigate them before releasing the information that they've let themselves off on the day that Tony Blair goes into a pointless inquiry to spin and lie his way though questioning about going into Iraq which we all know had precious little with UN charters and weapons inspectors in reality.

And these scanners? They could just be big plastic boxes, that don't do anything. They'd be just as effective anyway I guess. Like most airport security. No one will comment, no one will speak out or say it's a waste of money at the very least. We'll all just queue up, and pretend that it's going to make us safer, when in reality, human error and laziness are the terrorists best friends (as we saw this Christmas) and nothing will change, other than the amount of money in a few bank accounts will go up, and the story will make stupid people think that the government are getting tough on terror/looking out for our safety.

quote: There's a lot of talk about "broken Britain" because a few kids do really bad things, but the real stories that show that the country is broken are stories like this one, or where the police/council workers/anyone really can spy on me, or how bankers have held the country hostage and then raped it, whilst our MPs are too busy filling their own pockets and then when caught out, pretend it's all OK because they've told their friend to investigate them before releasing the information that they've let themselves off on the day that Tony Blair goes into a pointless inquiry to spin and lie his way though questioning about going into Iraq which we all know had precious little with UN charters and weapons inspectors in reality.

You, sir, are in the running for what has to be the longest run-on sentence in DailtyTech history :)

I started to think about this a little deeper. I do not have a child yet, but if I did I do not think I would want my kid, like a 15 or 16 year daughter going through one of these... This is sounding like a pedophile wet dream.

Only if they're into ghost porn. If so, then they you could just distract them with a copy of Casper The Friendly Ghost or something.

What you might find is that there are a lot of men with their hands in their pockets, trying to excite themselves a little to show a little more length on their scan, just in case there is a hot chick on the monitors in the room next door.

At the very least, I demand that the heating is turned up as I'm not going through there if it's cold!

I never saw Casper butt crack while I was growing up. It shows way more then you are suggesting... If it did not you would not have to worry about the temperature of the room.We need that machine from "Total recall" then the problem would be solved...

Dude, I was joking, and I assumed that you were not being all that serious too.

I feel sorry for your kids though. They're going to make Micheal Jackson's kids look like hippy free spirits who were allowed to run wild and free if you are already worrying about stuff like this. You probably wont be happy until everyone has had a lobotomy to remove their imagination in case a peado looks at your kids and imagines what they might look like naked or something.

To put your mind at rest. Apparently, these systems have no way of storing the images that tehy produce and I am pretty sure that if one of the operators was having a sly one off the wrist whilst using the machine, making your son/daughter spin around for his pleasure to make sure they're not an Al-Quida, then someone might well notice.

Has the paedophile hysteria really reached this level that people seriously make comments like yours and believe in/stand by them? Amazing. You're probably one of those people who would call the police if you saw someone taking photographs of an empty playground. Was it you that reported this?

Seriously, if paedophiles are having to resort to the kind of images that this machine produces, in the environment that it does, we are well and truly winning the war on the paedophiles, and paedogeddon may well be averted after all.